Delete catch-all

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds the behavioral effect (message routing ceases). It goes beyond the annotations by explaining the consequence of deletion, which is useful context for an agent considering this operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with zero waste. The action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence provides the key consequence. There is no redundant or filler content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter delete operation with annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description is complete. It explains the operational effect, which is the main missing context. No output schema is expected. Could mention confirmation or reversibility, but given the low complexity, this is adequate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the only parameter, catchallId, is described as 'Catch-all resource ID'. The tool description does not add further meaning, such as how to obtain the ID or format context, but with a single simple parameter the schema is sufficient. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a catch-all', and clarifies the consequence: 'Messages sent to unknown addresses of the domain are no longer routed to the mailbox.' This clearly distinguishes from mail_createCatchAllV1 and mail_listCatchAllsV1.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use it (to stop routing unknown-address messages) but does not explicitly state prerequisites or contrast with alternatives. No mention of needing an existing catch-all or when not to use it, so the agent must infer from the name and the effect.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.